Nikon 105mm F2.8 Macro lens

If you can afford it I would go for the Nikon, more saleable as well if you want to resell it later. Tried it on my D5100, but couldn't justify the cost. Went for the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 OS Macro instead.
 
lightshipman said:
If you can afford it I would go for the Nikon, more saleable as well if you want to resell it later. Tried it on my D5100, but couldn't justify the cost. Went for the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 OS Macro instead.
Click to expand...
The Nikon I linked to is the Older model I think??
 
had them both and i cant tell the difference between images taken with both. Theyre lovely lenses. Sold the tamron and got the nikon simply because the nikon works with some software that automates stacking. But quality wise I found them as good as each other.

*edit* sorry, just saw the linked Nikon was the older model, ive got the new one. So cant really comment on that one. But i know the Tamron is sharp enough to cut bread.
 
Last edited:
I had the Tamron and it is an excellent lens. Tack sharp and nice length for portraits. I sold it and bought the new Nikon 105mm. Had the Tamron on a D7000 and now have the Nikon on a D7100. The Nikon is a stunning lens for both macro and portraits. It's probably double the price of the Tamron which will do an excellent job if your budget is restricted.
 
... also don't forget about the NEW Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro

Fred
 
The lens you linked to is an excellent lens. There are some who consider it Nikon's best 105mm macro and think it sharper than the new one. tbh I can't tell the difference between them when looking at images. If it was a choice between the Nikon 105f2.8D and the tammy, I'd take the Nikon every time, particularly at that price.
 
I have a nikon 105 f/2.8d and love it. A lot smaller than the G version. You tend to get your money back with nikkor rather than sigma, tamron etc. I guess there is a good reason for that. Makes a nice portrait lens too.
Would be interested to know the views of those that have owned both D and G versions. But personally I love D versions anyway. Just miss VR!
 
Last edited:
VR is nice to have for general shooting or portraiture, but you wont use it for macro, not 1:1 at least.

I had the 105VR and the 60mm 2.8D - I honestly thought the 60mm was sharper. I wanted a little more reach so sold the 105 and got the 150mm Sigma, which also has OS. I just find it's more useful. Great for macro, and as a mid-tele lens. Also great for portraiture.
 
Reviving this thread as I am in the market for a 105mm macro. Its either the 105 Nikon vr second hand mint from mpb for £509 or the sigma 105 os new for around £390. Anyone had both. Some reviews put the sigma ahead of the nikon.
 
Oh. If you were closer you could have had a play with my 105
It's the first lens i bought as I wanted to Macro. Its been used half a dozen times.. But I'll still recommend the nikon

Mods

Thats NOT me instigating a sale. More explaining that I'll recommend it but not had a lot of use
 
Last edited:
Thanks Matt. I have a lens to trade in to mpb so only have about £250 to put towards it to get the nikon.
 
I'm thinking of doing the same. I want a 14-24 and a 24-70. 24-70 first though.

As said previous I would get the Nikon then if you find its not for you I'm sure you'll lose very little if anything
 
Not used the sigma...
Seen the results of the tamron, very nice!
I have the older 105mm micro nikkor, lovely lens.
Depending if it is just for macro, and what you are shooting, might be worth looking at the 150mm sigma too. Bigger, but longer working distance may help not scare off your target... um subjects... :)

Link in the siggy to pics... also works well with the extension tubes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top